Lk 2:32 FWS EIS APOKALUYIN (Luke in Codex Bezae)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 27 13:38:13 EDT 2002


At 8:50 AM -0400 9/27/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 9/27/2002 7:03:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sylvie
>Chabert d'Hyères writes:
>
>>Reply to George Somsel.
>>
>>>
>>> I tend to think the question is fairly well settled.  EQNWN is "the obj.
>>> gen. of the one who benefits by it."  It was derived from the use of the
>>> LXX translation of Is 42.6
>>>
>>> EGW KURIOS hO QEOS EKALESA SE EN DIKAIOSUNHi KAI KRATHSW THS XEIROS SOU KAI
>>> ENISXUSW SE KAI EDWKA SE EIS DIAQHKHN GENOUS,
>>> ** EIS  FWS EQNWN **
>>>
>>> What has been inserted is EIS APOKALUYIN.
>>
>>Except that there is no scriptural evidence for this insertion.
>>
>>Have you looked at the "Canticle" of Symeon in D05, which doesn't have EQNWN?
>>
>>30  hOTI EIDON hOI OFTALMOI MOU
>>            TO SWTHRION SOU
>>31  ...hO hHTOIMASAS KATA PROSWPON PANTWN TWN LAWN
>>32         FWS  EIS  APOKALUYIN
>>    KAI  DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAEL
>>
>>Yet v. 32 can be understood as outlined thus:
>>
>>32     FWS EIS
>>        APOKALUYIN  KAI DOXAN
>>                LAOU SOU ISRAEL
>>
>>Don't forget that Symeon, who was a priest (he blessed people in the
>>Temple), was, in Luke's words, DIKAIOS KAI EULABHS (v. 25)
>>
>
>How can you say that there is no scriptural evidence for the insertion of
>EIS APOKALUYIN when the quotation is from the LXX of Is 42.6 where EQNWN
>is present and EIS APOKALUYIN is not.  The author of the Gospel According
>to Luke clearly inserted it.  I think he was making a clarification of the
>purpose of the FWS.
>I don't see what Simeon's righteousness and piety has to do with the
>question.  Am I missing something?

The point which I think you missed, George, is that Sylvie referred
(you/us) to Lk 2:30-32 in Codex Bezae, where EQNWN is not present; I don't
see any good evidence that the form of the expression, FWS EIS APOKALUYIN
KAI DOXAN LAOU SOU ISRAHL derives at all from the LXX ttext of Isaiah 42:6.
You seem to be making the assumption that EQNWN was in the original text of
Luke and has been omitted by the copyist of Codex Bezae; that may be true,
but it would have to be demonstrated first, wouldn't it?
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list